Yeah, that was a real winner. Thurmond may have never owned slaves, but his original political stance was “segregation of all races,” a policy which won him the continuing support of white, backward South Carolinians. More recently, he staunchly opposed gays in the military. He has consistently shown nothing but total reactionary, 19th century values. In my not-so-goddamned-humble-at-all opinion, he is an anchor which holds South Carolina and the rest of the South on the floor of an ocean of ignorance. He really needs to be shown the door.
Jesse Helms opposed a national holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. He once called King’s followers “negro hoodlums.” He supported Apartheid. He supported Pinochet. He supported Cedras. He was willing to overlook death squads because Cedras was “deeply religious.”
No, they never were slave owners, but they probably would have been, had they been born in the right era.
You’re so full of shit Asmodean, that other threads are starting to stink.
First you say
Then you say
Which is it? You can’t say he doesn’t represent the south if you have no idea what he stands for on the issues. And what the fuck are you even doing in GD if you don’t know what Strom Thurmond stands for. That’s basic political knoweldge, if you don’t know that, than get your ass out of the debates.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. :wally That should be, “which is to say you’re an idiot.” It helps, when calling someone an idiot, to do so in such a way that your own idiocy is at least hidden from public view.
Well-informed, aren’t you?
An idiot.
Who would otherwise be in the minority.
Yeah, it’s who gives you the most walking-around money, right? If you mean that many people only take into account advertisements and sound-bites, you are sadly correct. However, whoever will represent you the best is exactly who you should be voting for.
But I hope that the majority of people who vote are voting for people they believe will represent them the best.
Asmodean, please, I’m from New York and already have a stereotypical view of Southerners (note the capitalization) and their ability to communicate in English. Don’t try so hard to live down to my stereotype. (Yes, Ogre and others, I know that that broad generalization is incorrect. But Asmodean does nothing to help his cause with that discombobulated tripe.)
Except, perhaps, their Representatives? Admittedly they do not represent “the South”, but individual communities within the South. Like it or not, those people from the South who are vocal about issues dear to the South are going to be seen by others as representing “the South” unless regular people speak up. This is why, for example, many people believe that Louis Farrakhan or Khalid Muhammed “represents” the views of blacks – because other black leaders frequently (with notable exceptions) do nothing to dispell the idea that either of those twits speaks for the “black community”.
Actually, I think we’ve shown that Maeglin is smarter, better looking and generally more fun to be with than you. New York 1, South Carolina 0.
Just a bystander to this argument, but I have to agree with Asmodean as far as… what is all the fuss about? His comments were hardly inflamatory.
I don’t really agree with what Asmodean says about the South not being racist… I mean, let’s not forget David Duke had a viable run for office in Louisiana. But it’s just his opinion. Get over it, people.
Only the people in South Carolina consistently vote that polyp back into office. The “rednecks” (if we must use that word) in the other 49 states have nothing to do with it.
Hyperbole is a standard weapon in the rhetorical arsenal, employed by the greatest orators in the western world. Aristotle remarks in his Rhetoric, Book III Chapter 11:
No offense, Amok, but if it’s good enough for Aristotle, it’s good enough for me.
And for my new buddy Asmodean, who missed the point of most of my rant.
This, of course, was not your original claim. Of course publicity helps. That’s why Jon Corzine won the New Jersey senatorial contest. I am amused that you are backpedaling, but I am not amused that you honestly believe that your original argument was that publicity only helps. Hell, Lazio was able to raise substantially more money than Hillary, which only increased his publicity. He had free publicity just because he was running against the First Lady. Didn’t help him much, since he was roundly defeated by a twelve point margin.
Maybe for you, Asmodean, maybe for you. But then again, you admitted that you don’t have a fucking clue where your own senator stands on the issues. Perhaps other people do take an active interest in who represents them.
Which fact is, of course, hopelessly irrelevant. When the democrats don’t represent me how I want them to, I write angry letters.
I think his skilled pork barrel politics has a little more to do with his consistent reelection than publicity, but you may believe what you want. I bet the man doesn’t even spend a dime campaigning.
Not in New York City, asswipe. The turnout was close to 70%. I was there, manning the polls. I saw the hordes of people filing in to vote. It is possible, Asmodean, that there are people who actually care about whom they elect.
Not everyone in the south is racist. I never said that.
I’m a Jew, and yes, I guess I’m a fucking miser. All Jews must be misers then.
There was no smiley face after your explanation for New York’s election of Hillary Clinton. You were dead serious. That is what angered me. Wasn’t it obvious?
As others have said…no one can represent the south except their elected officials. :rolleyes:
Actually, I’m not a racist or a bigot. I don’t think New Yorkers are inherently better people than South Carolinans. I’ve said that already. I just think that people like me are inherently better than people like you. The fact that you are living in SC is a geographical accident of little consequence.
oldscratch and Cantrip, many thanks. You guys are the best! You coming to the NYC Dopefest, Cantrip?
Avumede
I take my voting rights seriously. You may not care if someone accused you of electing an official only “because of the publicity around her name.” If you in fact wouldn’t care, then do me the favor of getting the fuck out of my way while I ream Asmodean for something I do care about.
evilbeth
Nice try, but the survey sez incorrect. If I had said all this country’s rednecks, you would have had a point. But I didn’t say all. Every redneck living in South Carolina is also living in this country. Where’s the logical error?
If you must know, I just liked the cadence of “this country’s rednecks” rather than leaving it simply “rednecks.” At the worst I am guilty of rhetorical excess.
MR
IIRC, it’s on the 6th, right? I’m going to see the Bobs in a rare appearance at the Bottom Line. After the show, however, maybe I’ll stop by. I haven’t seen the thread lately - is it still at Chumley’s, or has it been moved due to heavier-than-expected turnout?
[/complete hijack]
Ogre, I’m aware of Helm’s and Thurmond’s legislative history. I don’t dispute the accuracy of your first two paragraphs, but I do dispute their relevance. If you just wanted to rant on their faults, fine, but if your post was meant in response to mine, I don’t see how it addresses what I wrote. As for your last sentance, it is an untestable assertion.
Meaglin, my comment was not on the effectiveness of hyberbole, but rather on its dishonesty. The greatest orators of the western world have, in my humble opinion, been lest concerned with reasoned debate than in rallying men to their causes. If that is your purpose here, to inflame passions in order to fight the good fight, then by all means, discredit your enemies as much as you can. But rational argument suffers for it.
Amok, rational argument has already run its course in Great Debates. This section is for vituperation. The purpose of my post was to call out Asmodean’s stupidity in as tastefully insulting a manner as possible. Hyperbolic rhetoric only enhances the effect.
Join me in GD. You will not find such flourishes there.
Ok, so why did you vote for her? Because of her extensive experience in politics? Do you have a record of how she’s voted on certain issues?..What measure’s she’s supported, and which ones she’s opposed? According to this link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/HILLARY_Bio.html
She’s never really had any political positions. Unless of course you count the Student Government. I’m sure she has a ton of related skills at hosting functions, and performing duties of state, but how does that qualify her to hold a government seat?
Just to make this clear, I hold no opinion on her qualifications. She’s not representing my state. What I do want to point out is that a lot of people say they vote for a candidate because that person represents them. How many actually take the time to find out how their candidate voted? Did you do the research to see what the history of voting, and supporting and opposing measures/laws/ect. was? And how would you do this for Mrs. Clinton? All you have to go by is what she said. Well, hell, anyone can get up and pick the most popular stance for a lot of key issues, then claim that they will follow that same track in office. But you have nothing to go by to see if it’s true, just lip service. In my opinion, this doesn’t make you a strong supporter of your voting rights, but rather makes you seem very gullible.
You’re lambasting someone that self-admits that they are not certain what the stance of their representative is. Well, you really don’t know either. You know what she said, what she claims are her viewpoints, but no history to base those assumptions on.
Cantrip–
I’ll also say that picking someone’s post apart based on spelling and grammatical mistakes is a poor way of proving your point. All that you demonstrated to me is that you’re pretty petty. While this argument started in GD, and I know that the strictures there are more rigid than in other forum’s of this board, you’re particular post seemed to focus more on technical points rather than refuting his stance. Our language is a living, changing thing. Should you be held to grammatical rules that were in place a hundred years ago? two hundred? Like it or not, the way we communicate thoughts and ideas already has departed from the “proper” grammar taught in school. The way most people (even those that are grammatically knowledgeable, such as yourself) speak is entirely different from the way they should write. While occasionally, I am disheartened by the mis-use of “thru” and other such words, as long as a person’s meaning is clear, that is what I judge. This is admittedly my own personal standard, you may have a stronger background than I in proper grammatical writing, this would make mistakes much more noticeable to you.
Tymp–
There are ugly things that happen in every state of the union. Concentrating on “The South” and lumping the entire region together is akin to me saying that because there are a lot of predators that take advantage of runaways in Los Angeles, the entire “West” is filled with nothing but perverts and the entire area should be burned by a pillar of fire from the heavens. We have a lot of problems in this country. The solution to them is not pointing your finger to another spot and saying “Oh yeah, well look at what they’re doing”. I’ve lived a good portion of my life in the “South”, and traveled to just about every state south of the Mason Dixon line. While I’ve run into my share of bigots, I’ve met just as many in the North. True, the ones I meet down here are more honest and vocal in their prejudice, but is that worse than someone that keeps their views private, but just practices discrimination silently whenever they can?
Maeglin, I realize this is the Pit, and that you moved here because you felt there was no good debate left to be had in GD. Whether that was the case, I can not say, but I do agree that you have made your argument more effectively than Asmodean made his (whatever it was, as I’m honestly not quite sure what he was arguing for, but that’s neither here nor there, I suppose). However, you began this thread by responding to points that Asmodean made in GD and refuting them in turn. As such, there was continued argument; perhaps not rational argument, but argument nonetheless. In that context, I thought referring to Helms and Thurmond as “slavemasters”, whatever anyone might think of them (and I will admit that I am no particular fan of either), to be beyond the pale. Of course, whether it was is a wholly subjective decision, but I felt it was, and it bothered me enough that I felt the need to post and say I found it inappropriate. As I said in my original post, I am under no delusions regarding the importance of my opinion, so feel free to dismiss it, if you disagree.
I agree with you in that many bigots in the south are open and vocal about their beliefs. In fact, they are so vocal that they consistently vote for and elect representatives into positions of power and influence who have historically shared their fucked up worldviews. I disagree with your suggestion that this is no worse than the bitter morons any anywhere else keeping their idiocy to themselves.
That’s “forums” or “fora”, and “your”, not “you’re”. However, your meaning was clear, the errors were minor and I wouldn’t have pointed them out but for the context in which they were said.
Atrael, although the meaning may get through, much nuance and subtlety is lost, and so the art of writing becomes lost. Look at the letters written by ordinary soldiers during the Civil War and tell me that there has not been some loss in written expression twixt then and now. (I heard many letters read on a PBS Civil War special, and don’t have a link handy.)
Asmodean told Maeglin “Your a idiot.” Come on. That post says more about the poster than the target of the attempted insult. If someone wants to insult my intelligence, he or she had damn well better do it without violating basic rules of grammar. And although you’re right that written and spoken language are different, I have never, and will never, call someone “a” idiot. I hope you can say the same.
Look at it this way - if any post is perfect in grammar and spelling, you can focus entirely on the substance. If there are scads of mistakes (see any of Wildest Bill’s posts for examples), you (well, I, anyway) pause or stumble over those errors. Everyone misspells stuff every now and then. What I object to are posters who never ever ever spell-check and don’t care enough to preview or hit the backspace key. I also can’t stand it when posters mangle the language when trying to call someone else stupid - which is what Asmodean was trying to do here.
Yeah, but what about this:
Although I sort of get the gist, I really had to think a while to figure out what the hell Asmodean was saying here. Here, even the meaning was unclear, at least for a few minutes. If he wants his message to get through, he should communicate it properly.
Sorry to go on about this - it’s a pet peeve of mine.
sigh…and I did proof read that too. Oh well. I agree with you in spirit, and perhaps had I followed more closely to the original debate, I would have seen more types of mistakes such as the ones you pointed out. In this particular thread, I didn’t think they were all that bad. As to the line that you quoted, you’re right, I did have difficulty trying to understand his specific point. However, I did get the general idea.
I also agree that our written skills as a society as a whole are deteriorating, again though, I look at other advances, and have to weigh in my mind where the line should be drawn. I personally don’t feel the lack of formal instruction in Latin, although it used to be a larger part of higher education than it is now. Neither do I feel inadequate because my knowledge of Plato’s Republic is sketchy at best. (I know, but I don’t know the code to italicize). While it’s all fine and well to wish that everyone were as well rounded, educated, literate, and proper as in days gone by, I think the overall level of education is higher than during that time period. In other words, there were more people with little or no education than there are today. Although watching a chat room scroll by does give me cause for concern.
Tymp–
In my experience, those that I’ve run into that are silent about their views are worse. I have found this type of bigot to be the one that is more harmful to people. It’s easy to dismiss a loud-mouthed jerk that shouts the “N” word out of the back of a pick-up truck while tossing beer cans out the window. Even if his elected official shares those views, he is but one small part of a large governmental body, and therefore does have limited influence…especially if his views are in the minority in government. However a businessman that is silent about his views, can turn down applicants based on his prejudice and influence other members of his peer group. In other words, while I’m not black, I think I’d have an easier time dealing with a whole state of idiots that at least told me to my face why they are hostile to me, than going through life not being able to advance, or find a job without knowing why. Again though, this is only my personal opinion. I would wish that nobody had to ever feel that because of the color of their skin, that they couldn’t excel in life; however, I still feel that some of the quiet discrimination, is worse.
Yup, Cantrip, we’re still on for Chumleys. Check for details in the Official Countdown thread, and while you’re there, post and mention when you may be showing up.
Atrael, the “she has no legislative record” argument is older than the crust on Asmodean’s underwear. I don’t feel the need to waste much time discussing it for the Nth time.
According to this logic, one should only vote for an incumbent. If you don’t have a concrete legislative record, you don’t know if a person is truly representing you. This is incorrect and misleading for several reasons. Before you let your hackles rise, realize that a legislative record is in fact an excellent criterion by which you can judge a candidate. However, to extend this assertion beyond its limit is foolish.
and
Bingorama. Even with a legislative record, candidates can lie with utter impunity anyway, because most people just don’t care to do the research. Lazio was a deputy whip in the Gingrich administration, yet he tried to pass off his legislative record as one in line with his New York constituency. This sword cuts both ways.
How could you possibly support anyone moving up from the state legislature to a federal position? The issues they vote on are in many cases entirely different, and the political game can hardly be compared. How a person votes regarding a little bond issue in the state senate is no way to predict a person’s stance on, say, the continuation of strategic defense initiatives. You simply have to take the candidate’s word for it.
And you, in my view, are astoundingly naive. What is more important than a candidate’s lip service?
I don’t hear you?
WHERE SHE GETS HER MONEY
So let’s look at it this way. It is extremely easy to find out where candidates got their money.
Let’s play Q&A.
Does Hillary accept large donations from organizations whose aims are similar to my own or at least from organizations that I am favorably disposed to?
Yes.
Is she ultimately accountable to her fundraisers if she wants to remain in office?
Yes.
If she turns around and votes in a way diametrically opposed to her espoused viewpoints will she keep her seat?
HELL NO
Does she have significant enough political stature to sit on some committees to bring money home to New York State?
Yes.
So, does Atrael not know what the fuck he is talking about?
Well, I turned 52 the day the U.S. Constitution became material for stand-up comics (about six weeks ago; it’s also the anniversary of the Russian Revolution, FWTW). The day I was born, the Stromosaurus was garnering electoral votes in four southern states.
Rumor has it he and the Queen Mother are making plans to celebrate New Years Eve 2050 together (though he’ll probably leave later in the evening and pick up a younger chick at a singles bar; his last wife was only a fraction of his age – though that probably goes without saying!).
That’s because you’ve never had it. I took a summer course in Latin after 11th grade, and it was only after that course that I understood the difference between “who” and “whom”, and various other lessons regarding subject and object that were not taught properly in English class and that didn’t come up in German, I guess.
Maeglin, right on. I also knew Lazio’s record and Hillary’s positions, and your’ darn tootin’ that I was fully informed about both of them before casting my vote.
That’s because you’ve never had it. I took a summer course in Latin after 11th grade, and it was only after that course that I understood the difference between “who” and “whom”, and various other lessons regarding subject and object that were not taught properly in English class and that didn’t come up in German, I guess.
Maeglin, right on. I also knew Lazio’s record and Hillary’s positions, and you’re darn tootin’ that I was fully informed about both of them before casting my vote.
